Civil
Misc. Petition No.of 2006

In the matter of:

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7790of 2006

In the matter of:

Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;

In the matter of:

Application Under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for restoration of the Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 7790 of 2006in conformity with the Judgment
dated 12th September 2001, of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court pronounced by a Bench comprising of Hon’ble CJI, R.C. Lahoti & Doraiswamy Raju JJ., in Appeal (civil) No.
4400 of 2000 along with C.A. No.4405/2000 pronounced by R. C. Lahoti J., reported in the AIR: 2001:SC at pages: 3689 to 3703recalling the Order Dated 9th May 2006 for the ends of justice;

In the matter of:

Milap Choraria,

Son of late Shri Deep Chand Choraria

Permanent
Address: P.O. Tamkore, District: Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)

Presently Resident of B-5/52, Sector-7, Rohini,

Delhi-110085………. Petitioner

-Vs-

1.Union of India,

Through Cabinet Secretary to the Government of India,

Rashtrapati Bhawan,

New Delhi-110004

2.The Secretary to the Government
of India,

The Ministry of Home Affairs,

North Block, Central Secretariat,

New Delhi - 110 001

3.The Secretary to the Government
of India,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

North Block,

New Delhi-110001

4.Indian Embassy in Italy represented by

Indian Ambassador to Italy,

Through Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, North Block,

1.That the Petitioner filed aforesaid Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7790 of 2006 as a Public Interest Litigation in
complete conformity with the aforesaid Judgment dated 12th September 2001, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and moved on 9th May 2006,
when Hon’ble High Court pleased to dismiss it. Photocopy of the Order dated 9th May 2006 passed by the Hon’ble High Court is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure “A”.

2.In view of
the dismissal order passed by the Hon’ble High Court the Petitioner humbly prays through the instant Application
under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for the restoration of the aforesaid Writ Petition after recalling the aforesaid
Order dated 9th May 2006 for the ends of justice and on the interalia grounds that the following important issues
were not considered:

(1)Hon’ble Supreme Court in it’s Judgment dated 12th September 2001, pronounced by a Bench comprising of Hon’ble CJI, R.C. Lahoti & Doraiswamy Raju JJ., in Appeal (civil) No.
4400 of 2000 along with C.A. No.4405/2000 pronounced by R. C. Lahoti J., reported in the AIR: 2001:SC at pages: 3689 to 3703
clearly held that no Court in India can take judicial notice of any foreign laws.
When the aforesaid Writ Petition was dismissed, the Hon’ble High Court pleased to took ‘Strong Judicial Notice
of the foreign Laws’.

(2)That from the observations made in the aforesaid Judgment dated 12th September 2001 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it appears
that during the hearing in respect of the prayers therein to declare Section 5(1)(C) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 as
ultra vires, the Hon’ble Supreme Court wanted to know some specific prima-facie evidences, from the respective Petitioners
in support of their such prayer. In this context this Petitioner humbly submits that in his Writ Petition he tried to fulfill
such requirements through adducing evidences and averment with reference to his similar prayers.

(3)That the Petitioner
in the aforesaid Writ Petition just not placed simply issue relating to the Citizenship of the Respondent No. 6 and 7, for
the adjudication by the Hon’ble High Court. The Petitioner humbly submits that he placed a very serious question for
the adjudication by the Hon’ble High Court. Issue raised by the Petitioner in his Writ Petition further strengthened
in the light of the observation made by the Hon’ble High Court. In view of the aforesaid observations made by the Hon’ble
High Court, aforesaid serious question can be placed in different way that whether a person under the Constitution of Federal
Republic of Germany was a German and still could lay claim to the citizenship of Federal Republic of Germany, while presently
he is holding the Citizenship of India, at all can he hold any Constitutional Office in India and can govern to the people
of India, under the Citizenship scheme of India and also under the different categories of the Citizenship and under the Citizenship
Act, 1955? This aspect was completely missed when Writ Petition was dismissed.

(4)Such circumstances is developed just because under the Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Indian Citizenship
Act, 1955 all such aspects were not required to be considered as were required in respect of citizenships of India for another
category of citizenship. Blindness in the provision of Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act,
1955 allowed to the authorities to grant Indian citizenship to the Respondents No. 6 and 7 just like Citizenship by birth,
which should not have been allowed to the Respondents Nos. 6 and 7.

(5)The Petitioner never can file a vexatious litigation.

2.That in the aforesaid Supreme Court Judgment it was held in clear terms that no Court in India can take judicial notice of a foreign Law, including Italian Law. While Hon’ble High Court took the Judicial Notice
of the foreign law i. e. Italian Law in this matter, by describing the differences between Indian and Italian Citizenship
laws and impact upon the Italian Law from the history of fascist invasion. The Petitioner humbly submits that the aforesaid
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7790 of 2006 is based in complete conformity with the aforesaid Supreme Court Judgment and fulfills
the requirements for examination and adjudication of the referred averment and pleading with supporting adducing evidences
to prove interalia following material facts in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code and Indian Evidence Act:

1.That the Respondent No. 6 was born in Italy as an Italian Citizen by Birth;

2.That when the Respondent No. 7 was born in India his mother was
an Italian Citizen, and as such he was not an Indian Citizen by birth, but an Italian Citizen by birth;

3.That according to the Citizenship Law of Italy and the Constitution
of Italy, the Respondents No. 6 and 7 never can renounce their “Right to Citizenship of Italy, as it undoubtedly prevails
permanently, irrevocably, unequivocally and forever, and even if they might have renounced their Citizenship of Italy, it is always
recoverable at any time on the expiry of one year from the date of their declaration to the effect in the prescribed manner;

4.That when Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 was enacted preventive provisions
were not made in the law, under which and in accordance with the scheme of the Indian Citizenship, no person holding a citizenship
of any other country even if gets citizenship of India under dual citizenship, can hold any Constitutional Office in India.
In this case the Respondent No. 6 is allowed to hold the Constitutional Office in violation of the Article 102 of the Constitution
of India, thus Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 is ultra virus.

5.That the allegiance of the Respondents No. 6 and 7 to the Constitution of Italy are acknowledged and undoubtedly prevails permanently, irrevocably,
unequivocally and forever. In such a case they ought to be disqualified for being chosen
as, and for being a member of either House of Parliament under Article 102 of the Constitution of India.

6.That Section 5(1)(c), read with Section 5(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955, is enacted in violation of the Scheme
of Indian Citizenship under which no Indian Citizen having also citizenship of any other country can hold any constitutional
office. While the enactment of Section 5(1)(C) read with Section 5(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act contrarily opens the doors
to hold the Constitutional office in violation of the Constitutional Proprietary.

7. That Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 is enacted by overriding the provisions
of the Article 102 of the Constitution of India granting the Citizenship of India to the Respondent No. 6 and allowed to contest
the election for Parliament and opens the doors to hold any Constitutional office in violation of the Constitutional Proprietary.

4.That the Petitioner Humbly submits that he being a much less educated person, representing the vast majority of Indians,
and since in any Indian Court he entered after a gap of 10 Years, and the Petitioner never gave any lecture or speak at any
place as a speaker, therefore there might be some linguistic communication gap between the Petitioner and the Hon’ble
High Court or he might have failed to place the correct direction of the Judgment dated 12th September 2001, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court pronounced
by a BENCH comprising of Hon’ble CJI, R.C. Lahoti & Doraiswamy Raju JJ., in Appeal (civil) No. 4400 of 2000 along
with C.A. No.4405/2000 pronounced by R. C. Lahoti J., reported in the AIR: 2001:SC at pages: 3689 to 3703 in relation to the
Constitutional Validity of the Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Indian
Citizenship Act, 2005, and dispute relates to Right to Italian Citizenship of the Respondents No. 6 and 7.

5.That the Petitioner since his childhood has been engaged in activities of the larger
public interests, and he never can file any vexatious litigation. He raised the important issue through aforesaid Writ Petition
in consideration of its importance in the national interests and proprietary of the Constitution of India. For this very reason
the Petitioner filed the aforesaid Writ Petition just in the national and larger public interests and made averment and pleaded
adducing evidences relating to question of the fact, based on the Italian Law, to prove that the Respondents No. 6 and 7 are
not illegible to contest election to either House of Parliament, as they were debarred by Article 102 of the Constitution
of India, and that Section 5(1)(c ) and 5(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 overridden upon the aforesaid Constitutional
provisions by opening the unconstitutional doors for the Respondent No. 6 to contest the Electionfor Parliament.

6.That petitioner Humbly submits and want to white-wash the impression from the mind of the Hon’ble Court, as the
same were appeared on 9th May 2006, in the way of the observations made by Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice,
at the time of starting of the hearing of the Writ Petition that “you is more experience than us, but are you aware
about 1946’s fascist invasion in the Italy.”. In fact qualification of the Petitioner is just sixth Class and
as such he is least knowledgeable about any fascist history. However, being a strictly Jain and coming from the background
of the family having the following of strict discipline in confirming to the rich Jain traditions based on 1st
Jain Mahabrata i. e. TRUTH, Petitioner has always taken care to adhere to the principles of honesty, sincerity with complete
truth and maintain the same in his working. He belongs to that large family in which the great saint Acharya Mahaprganayaji
is born. His own two sisters left and renounced their all family relations to become reclusive saints under His Holiness.
From his small Village 25 boys and girls left and renounced their all family relations to become recluse saints under His
Holiness. The Petitioner has always acted with a sprit for the improvement of the system in the larger interest of the society
vis-à-vis the country. The Petitioner do admit that some people having influence or are powerful and are connected with the
people in Top positions and having access to those who move in the corridors of Power, do not like the working of the Petitioner,
simply because their vested interests are critically effected. Hence, it is obvious
that they would always try to manipulate the system, with the help of their lobbying competency and connectivity in the hierarchy
of power circle. The Petitioner, without having any political or monetary interests, have always tried to raise issues of
the Larger Public or national Interests. It was always experienced that in the most of the matters at the initial stage people
having the vested interests might have got success for time being, but as a matter of fact that finally the truth gets justice,
and the Petitioner gets the feeling of being vindicated as our own Constitution holds full throttle, as loudly as possible,
“SATYAMAIV JAIYTEY”. Whenever issues raised by him were adjudicated or intervened by the Judiciary, he got full
justice strengthening his confidence in the Temple of Justice, though at times his actions might have gone against large Business Houses in
the country. But, during the past 23 years or so he had some different experiences as well, owing to his long severe sufferings,
engineered under the pressure of the Politico-Criminal-Nexus. In spite of such constant severe sufferings, he has always tried
to maintain his working in the larger public interests, in spite of severe critical situations which he always tries to take
as an acknowledgment and treat them as awards in the form of victimization for his honesty. After all one has to pay the price
for whatever one wants to hold. Under
the background of regular working in the larger public interests, some of the facts relating to his activities in the larger
public interest and his sufferings are referred below for the prima-facie satisfaction of the Hon’ble Court that the Petitioner never can or intended to file and move a vexatious litigation:

(1) News
Published in the Amrita Bazar Patrika dated 15th November 1994 along with correspondence between the Petitioner
and Ld. Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Advocate, are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “B”.

(2) The Land Mafia referred in the aforesaid News was
one Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala. Land Mafia, manipulated to get revoked the Building Plans of the Petitioner from the Kolkata
Municipal Corporation on the false grounds that the Petitioner has obtained the sanction of the Plans for the buildings by
misrepresentations to the Corporation. The Petitioner justified before the Hon’ble High Court of Kolkata that he did
never took recourse to any false or misleading pleas to obtain the sanction for the building plans from the Corporation and
as such the question of any misrepresentation does not arise. However, the Petitioner was fully aware that in fact the aforesaid
Land Mafia obtained sanction Plan of Two Multistoried Buildings based on serious misrepresentations, since the front western
side portion of the aforesaid two Buildings were built up upon the Railway Land, which he had unlawfully occupied and encroached
upon. In this respect, Petitioner lodged a number of complaints before the Railway authorities, CBI, CVC and even met with
the then Secretary of the CVC Mr. Bhure Lal. But every exercise of the Petitioner proved to be futile, because of the nexus
between the powerful politicians and the aforesaid Land Mafia. Now the Petitioner had started receiving the official information
from the different Public Authorities under RTI Act, 2005, including the Railway. After filing of more than 40 Applications
and 15 Appeals before the Eastern Railway, now the information available, the Petitioner in a position to say that more or
less, approximately,
15859 Square Feet of Railway Land is still under the illegal possession and encroachment of the aforesaid Land Mafia, which
was used in construction of the aforesaid Two Buildings and underground garages.

(3) That the information received under RTI ACT also indicates
that Income Tax Department acted to protect transactions executed by aforesaid Land Mafia in violations of the Income Tax
Act, while in this matter too the then Secretary of the CVC Mr. Bhure Lal did nothing in spite of having passed the order
in presence of the Petitioner. These are some of the few matters of the acts and omissions amounting to criminal misfeasance
of the aforesaid Land Mafia. The Petitioner is having a list of more than hundred such matters of criminal misconduct of the
aforesaid Land Mafia, and trying to get information from each public authority to place the truth before the Judiciary for
its adjudication.

(4) In 1877 when tradition was not developed
to call individuals before Parliamentary Committees, the Petitioner was invited in his personal capacity before Parliamentary
Public Undertaking Committee on one very important national issue; Photocopy of one of the Letter dated 8th September
1977, from Loksabha Secretariat is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “C”.

(5) In connection with his activities relating
to larger Public Interests, he, as a Member of the respective delegations, met the then President Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma,
the then Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Finance Minister and present Prime Minister Dr. Man Mohan Singh. Photocopies
of such meetings and one relating to photo of inauguration of his one Book by the then West Bengal Small-scale Minister and
presently Member of Parliament and also Member of Polite Bureau of CPI(M) Party Shri Chittabrata Mazumdar are annexed herewith
and marked as Annexure “D”.

(6)On 20th March 1996
in consideration of the Article 51A, 324 and 326 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner filed a Petition before the
Election Commission of India, with a concept suggesting thereby to evolve the system to make mandatory to submit an affidavit
to supply information by the candidates for State Legislatures and Parliament about the record of the criminal cases against
them, which may help to disqualify the candidates to contest elections for the State Legislature Assemblies or Parliament.
Thereafter, a Notification was issued by Election Commission by way of the Letter No. 509/Disqln./97-J.S.I. dated 28th August
1997, with direction upon all the Chief Electoral Officers of the States and Union Territories, on the subject, under the
caption “Criminalisation of Politics - participation of criminals in the electoral process as candidates –disqualification-on-conviction
for offences – effect of appeal and bail – regarding.” The scheme of such Notification was clearly based
on the aforesaid concept and ideas of the Petitioner though with limited scope relating to convicted persons, which might
have been prepared after due considerations, appropriate discussions, consultations and taking legal opinion. However, after
enactment of the Right to Information Act, 2005 the Petitioner is now trying to establish linkages between his aforesaid Petition
and aforesaid Notification issued by the Election Commission. For the reasons best known to the officials of the Election
Commission, they did not allow access to the Petitioner, and therefore, the Petitioner had to move a Complaint under Section
18(1) of the RTA 2005 and in this respect a News item published in the Times of India dated 10th May 2006 is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure “E”.

(7)That being a Leader of Aluminium Small Manufacturers Association, he challenged a Writ Petition filed by one of the
Monopoly House based on the their unfair demands for Price rise under statutory control based on manipulated figures, by filing
a Petition seeking to be made as one of the Respondents. Petitioner’s aforesaid Petition was opposed on behalf of the
aforesaid Monopoly and large business House in India
by a galaxy of Senior Most Lawyers of the country, like Ld. Mr. Siddhartha Shankar Ray, Mr. Dipankar Gupta, and so on. In
the aforesaid matter, Ld. Mr. Milon Bannerjee, the then Additional Solicitor General of India and presently Attorney General of India appeared on behalf of the MMTC. The
Petition of the Petitioner was supported in eight pages of the order but rejected in last page just on the ground that the
Petitioner is not a directly interested party in the matter. In fact the aforesaid Petition was the first of its kind in the
nature of a Public Interest Litigation, but unrecognized, as till then, the phraseology of PIL was not known to the judicial
vocabulary. However, thereafter, Petitioner started sending regular Telegraphic messages contradicting the facts referred
by the aforesaid Monopoly producers. Finally the monopoly producer lost its case in the Supreme Court. However, it was sad
as was reported to the Petitioner that Ld. Mr. Dipankar Gupta, took this defeat of his client as his personal defeat.

(8)In the year of 1979 the Petitioner demanding equitable
distribution of Aluminium to all the SSI units sat for Fast unto death. He broke his fast only after getting written assurance
from the respective Company. Another monopoly
Aluminium Producer Indian Aluminium Company Limited (INDAL) at the cost of its own consumers and Shareholders decided for
the merger of INDAL with Mahindra & Mahindra Limited. The Petitioner had to challenge its monopolistic trade practice
with the MRTP Commission and further challenged its program for merger before Company Law Board and Kolkata High Court and
filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In this case too Ld. Dipankar Gupta, was Senior Lawyer on behalf
of INDAL. On 15th December 1983 the then Chairman of the Company, INDAL, Mr. Keshab Mahindra in a message to all
its Shareholders including the Petitioner informed that “At their respective meetings held on 26th September
and 4 October, the Shareholders of Mahindra& Mahindra Limited and approved the scheme of Amalgamation between the two companies by the requisite majorities. Both
companies submitted their petitions to the respective High Courts in Bombay and Calcutta for confirmation of the Scheme. The Central Government’s approval under the
MRTP Act is also awaited.” After receipt of the aforesaid communication the Petitioner on 6th January 1984
submitted a Telegraphic Petition before the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. P. N. Bhagwati of the Hon’ble the
Supreme Court, for transferring all such matters pending before the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts and prayed for being heard
along with his Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8401 of 1982, then pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Within just 40
days, there-from, the Petitioner as a Shareholder of the Indal received another Circular Message dated 16th February
1984 from the Chairman of the Company interalia saying that “I greatly regret to say that Government has been fit to
reject our application as not being expedient in the public interest.” Reportedly again this defeat was also seriously
taken by Ld. Mr. Dipankar Gupta as his personal defeat. Photocopies of few news cuttings relating to the aforesaid Fast and other News relating to his activities in the larger public interest and in the interests
of justice for the survival of SSI Aluminium Industry, are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “F”,for perusal of the Hon’ble Court.

(9) That during the period of the 1980 -1982 including one on 30th November 1981,
the petitioner met thrice with the then Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi in his capacity as the President of Federation of
Aluminium Users Association of India and presented Memorandum to ensure equitable distribution at fair prices based on Tariff
Commission Reports. After the assurance given by the Prime Minister, the Petitioner withdrew his program for fast unto death
at outside Parliament House. The news relating to the assurance given by the then Prime Minister is also annexed with the
other news relating to Aluminium. However, thereafter, the then Steel Minister Mr. Pranab Mukherjee, who was supporting the
demand of the Aluminium producers, presented one after another proposal for price-rise of the Controlled Aluminium. Each time
the Petitioner received informed in time from his own sources about agenda item of the Cabinet, relating to proposal of the
Union Minister Shri Pranab Mukherjee. Each time the Petitioner reminded the then Prime Minister through Telegraphic message
about her assurance and each time proposal was returned without any decision. Finally third time, as it was reported by the
source of the Petitioner, that the then Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi directed Shri Pranab Mukherjee not to present the
proposal again. The aforesaid Memorandum also supplied to several other Ministers and Members of the Parliament. On the basis
of data referred in the aforesaid Memorandum, the Ministry of Energy, under the then union Energy Minister Mr. Abdul Ganni
Lhan Chowdhury resisted price rise of Controlled Aluminium, as it was published in the Economic Times dated 8th
December 1981. Now the petitioner is intending to get true facts relating to aforesaid Cabinet Meetings, its agenda items
and also relating to other News items under Right to Information Act, 2005.

(10)That one Judicial Officer from the “West Bengal Judicial Services” was indulged in manipulations of the
Court Records and the Petitioner filed Petitions under Section 340 Cr. P. C. in the Court of the said Judicial Officer and
also filed Revision Petitions before the Hon’ble High Court. Considering serious consequential effects upon his Service,
the Judicial Officer hatched a Plot and got arrested the Petitioner on 25th November 1983. After coming back from
the arrest the Petitioner lodged a Complaint before Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court as well as and
filed an Application under Section 197 of the Cr. P. C. It was the result of the aforesaid complaint of the Petitioner, that
gave him a clear understanding about the concept of the fairness of the judiciary under which an immediate enquiry was set
up by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta and within six days from the discharge of the Petitioner from the aforesaid
Criminal Case, aforesaid Judicial officer reportedly was dismissed from the Judicial Services, probably an incidence for the
first time of this kind in the Judicial History of India. Possibly, such dismissal might have also annoyed Ld. Mr. Dipankar
Gupta. One News item was published in ‘The Telegraph’ relating to arrest of the Petitioner by forcibly lifting
him bodily, under the glaring view of the large number of the litigants, Advocates and others present at that time, at the
behest of the then Munsif. Photocopy of the same is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “G”.

(11) That in the year 1983 the Petitioner prepared a Model of New Civil Procedure Code based on his own personal experiences.
If the same could have been adopted it would have ensure expeditious justice delivery system ensuring adjudication of each
Civil litigation within two years, from the date of its filing. The Petitioner forwarded it to the then Law Minister of India
Shri Asok Sen, but found no response even after repeated reminders. Finally on 3rd March 1995 Petitioner presented
the same before Hon’ble Chief Justice of India by Registered Post and then referred in Writ (Civil) Petition NO. 151
of the 1996 of the Supreme Court which was filed on 7th February 1996 as a PIL. During the hearing of the Petition
the then Hon’ble Chief Justice, Mr. A. M. Ahamdi appreciated the working of the Petitioner when Petitioner pleaded for
his detailed suggestions referred to in the Writ Petition for certain amendments in the following Laws:

1.Representatives of People Act;

2.Section 197 of Criminal Procedure
Code;

3.Official Secrets Act;

4.A New Model of Civil Procedure
Code;

5.Rules under Sub-Clause (c ) Clause
(1) of Article 145 of the Constitution of India to define “appropriate proceedings for Civil Reliefs”.

(12)That
after hearing the Petition the then Hon’ble Chief Justice suggested to the Petitioner to forward his all such suggestions
to the Law Commission of India even referring His Lordships name for such advise. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court agreed
to consider the Rules suggested by the Petitioner
under Sub-Clause (c) Clause (1) of Article 145 of the Constitution of India to define “appropriate proceedings for Civil
Reliefs” relating to the Public Interest Litigations and to that effect passed the order. Photocopy of certified copy
of the aforesaid order was already annexed with the Writ Petition as Annexure “A” to the instant Writ Petition.
The aforesaid suggestions referred to in the aforesaid Writ Petition are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “H”.

(13)That in consideration of the aforesaid
advice made by His Lordship the Petitioner forwarded his aforesaid Suggestions to the Law Commission of India by letter dated
6th June 1996 posted through Registered Post. That after enactment of
the Right to Information Act, 2005 the Petitioner wanted to know that what action were taken on his aforesaid Writ Petition
in view of the Order dated 29th March 1996 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. When Section 89 Amendment
was passed in 1999 in respect of Civil Procedure Code, impression was caused in the mind of the Petitioner that only some
of his suggestions and that too in parts were adopted in the amendment, which may fail to give proper results, unless his
Complete Model of New Civil Procedure Code is not considered in its entirety. If his suggestion would have been accepted then
implementation of the aforesaid Amendment might not have met the fate of being suspended by the then Minister of Justice due
to opposition from Indian Bar Associations and also owing to the vagueness and contradictions in the wording of the Section
89 Amendment. Under the suggestions made by the Petitioner, no much infrastructure could have been required and neither the
existing work of the Advocates would have been affected, since under the mechanism suggested by the Petitioner, some Non-Judicial
Court work could have been transferred on equal distribution basis upon all the Advocates, giving them a meaningful real status
of the Court Officers. Recently, it came to the notice of the Petitioner that in the “NYU Journal of International Law
and Politics, 1998” an article was published under heading: Reform of the Indian Civil Justice System: Limitation and Preservation of the Adversarial Process
by Hiram E. Chodosh, Stephen A. Mayo, A.M. Ahmadi & Abhishek M. Singhvi was published. The
Petitioner is trying to get information to connect linkage between his suggestions and aforesaid Article, since he has so
far not been able to get the requisite information under RTI Act, 2005 from the Supreme Court. In this respect letters received
from the Central Public Information Officer of the Supreme Court and typed
copy of the letter written to the Law Commission of India are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “I” Collectively.

(14)That
the Petitioner being Hon’y General Secretary of the SSI Sector Apex Organisation, he was appointed by the Government
of India as a Member of the Finance Sub-Group headed by a Professor from AIIM Ahmedabad and another Sub-Group for Marketing
headed by Shri S. S. Singhania. The Petitioner acted just for the benefit of the national interest not at all for any kind
of personal interests. From the members of Finance Sub-Group Petitioner had enough scope to get monetary benefits, but he
was never prone to get interested to have any benefit out of his activities in the larger public interests. Photocopies of
the related pages of the sub-group published by the Government of India showing the names of members of their respective Sub-Groups
are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “J”.

(15)In
the year of 1996 Lokpal Bill was presented by the then Government and the Petitioner submitted his large number of suggestions
to the Parliamentary Standing Committee. In this respect Letter from the Chairman of the aforesaid Committee and few pages
of the Report showing the name of the Petitioner and few letters in response to suggestions made by the Petitioner are annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure “K”.

(16)From
the first date of inauguration of Transparency International India Chapter, Petitioner joined in its activities since he is
always interested to get involved in activities aimed to curtail the melee of corruption. In this respect Photocopy of the
inauguration of Transparency International India Chapter and conference for the combating corruption and promoting transparency
and accountability and names of the related people and the Petitioner working as a Member of the Corruption Control Committee
are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “L”.

(17)The
Petitioner and others are demanding for the past several years for setting up of the Institution of Lokpal. In the year of
1997 the Petitioner under the leadership of Shri S. D. Sharma and two others sat on Fast unto death demanding the presentation
of the Lokpal Bill in the Parliament. However, at the evening of the second day of the fast renowned personalities like Shri
Kuldip Nayar, Justice Rajinder Sachhar, Shri Soli J. Sorabji and Shri Rajmohan Gandhi called at the Satyagraha camp at the
gate of the Lajpat Bhawan, where the fast was being carried, and gave the impression that the then Prime Minister would solve
this problem after 15th August 1997, as such the fast was broken by all the Four leading lights. Photocopy of the
Bulletin of Lok Sevak Sangh combined with the Newsletter of Transparency International India with reference to the aforesaid
Fast is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “M”

(18)That
in the year of 1994 this was reported that the Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd., was planning to issue
Bonus Shares, under the advise from its Chartered Accountants: M/S. Lodha & Company. When this matter was placed by some
one and when the Petitioner studied the Balance Sheet of the Peerless for the preceding four years, he learnt that Peerless
is involved in hiding its then liabilities standing around Rs.172/207 crores, besides several other manipulations, including
hiding the judgment of the Supreme from the notice of the Kolkata High Court with the malafide intention to get an injunction
order against the RBI. On the basis of the aforesaid facts and studies made by the Petitioner and in the larger public interest,
the Petitioner served representations dated 28th November 1994 to the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, with
copies to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and Hon’ble Chief Justice of Kolkata High Court, Peerless Chairman,
M/S. Lodha & Company the Chartered Accountant, and Institute of the Chartered Accountants of India. Thereafter, when the
Reserve Bank of India moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the main issue relating to the Service Charges which was
raised by the Petitioner in his aforesaid representation addressed to the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, was uphold
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the crime pertaining to the hiding of the liability of Rs.172/207 Crores was found
greater by manifolds, when the matter wasscrutinized by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court with regard to the balance sheet for the past 25 years of the Peerless Company. The photocopies of the aforesaid representation
and related News cuttings are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “N”.

(19)That
the Petitioner is not a Journalist by profession. But, being a spirited person to bring improvement in the system to ensure
good governance, he has written about 250 articles which have been published in Hindi Newspapers in India. On an average some 10 Newspapers have published most of his articles. Articles
written by the Petitioner were published throughout the country and had a good response supporting his ideas and methods suggested.

(20)In the year 1997, under the direction of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in a PIL, the Railways
published advertisements in several Daily Newspapers inviting suggestions from the General people to bring improvement in
the Railway Reservation system. The Petitioner submitted his suggestions before the Railway authorities which were duly acknowledged.
Thereafter, within few months, The Railway introduced the Tatakal Scheme. The concept that was suggested by the Petitioner
is by and large the same that has been incorporated in the Tatakal Scheme. Hence the petitioner wanted to seek the linkage
between his suggestion and the Tatakal Scheme. After filing 15 Applications and few Appeals under RTI Act, 2005 the Petitioner
is constrained to conclude that the letter written by him containing the suggestion was stolen from the Railway Records, and
a fake letter purported to be written by some other person was implanted instead. This is a matter of grave concern that in
response to the aforesaid advertisements, as per the information obtained under RTI Act, the Railways received only two letters. One was from a Mumbai based NGO and the other Letter vide reference No. 1-PTA/O/Genl/(L) dated 4th
September 1995 was from a Senior Railway Official namely Mr. N. N. Vasudeva, the then Chief Commercial Manager, Northern Railway.
By the time, the aforesaid advertisement was published by the Railway Board, the aforesaid Railway Official Mr. N. N. Vasudeva,
had been promoted as Additional Member Railway Board (Commercial). More surprising fact is that in spite of the a number of
the applications made to the Northern Railway, when the Petitioner could not procure a photocopy of the Aforesaid Letter from
the Northern Railway, he pursued one of his friends Mr. Avadhesh Kumar to apply for the requisite information. As per the
Railway Rules, Letters pertaining to Policy matters are preserved for 20 years by the Railway itself and thereafter they are
forwarded onwards for further preservation. But from the reply received by Mr. Avadhesh Kumar, besides information received
by the Petitioner, it indicates that in fact aforesaid letter was never sent from the Northern Railway, rather interpolated
simultaneously at the time of the removal of the letter of the Petitioner, as at that point of time Mr. Vasudeva was in-charge
of the respective department in the Railway Board. Now an Appeal is pending with the Appellate Authority of the Railways pleading
that the aforesaid Suggestion Letter of the Petitioner was removed from the file and stolen by some Railway personnel with
the intent to implant the other fake letter in place. Photocopies of the Letter No. 1-PTA/O/Genl/(L) dated 4th
September 1995 from Mr Vasudeva and information received by Mr. Avadhesh Kumar are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure
“O”.

(21)That
in view of the disgusting situation that has come to stay in India, owing to the lack of good governance, the Petitioner after
giving a deep thought over the matter, feels that Good Governance is bound to remain a far cry unless the honest people are
drawn in the political set-up, through appropriate mechanism in the system for the election of the people’s representatives
and regulation of the Political Parties based on reins of powers in the hands of the people against the hands of the individual
political leaders. Initially the Petitioner referred all his ideas in Articles and finding a good response from the Readers,
is prompted to write a “Model of New Constitution for India”, a copy of which he took care to forward to the National
Commission for working of the Constitution of India and subsequently also got the same registered with the Registrar of Copy
Rights.

6.That in consideration of the facts and
circumstances as aforesaid in the interest of Justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, the Petitioner
Humbly prays under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, before the Hon’ble High Court please to;

a)PASS an ORDER, recalling the order dated 9th May 2006 passed in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7790 of 2006, after directing the Registry of the Hon’ble High Court, for presentation of the records of the Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 7790 2006 at the time off hearing of this application;

b)ISSUE
notices upon all the Respondents to show cause, why prayers of the Petitioner referred in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7790
of 2006 are not allowed?

c)GRANT
stay of the operation of the Order dated 9th May 2006 passed in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7790 of 2006 of this
Hon’ble Court till disposal of this Petition; and

d)PASS
further order or orders as Hon’ble High Court deem fit and proper for the ends of justice.

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND, EVER
PRAY.